Agreed. As an undergrad I worked around many prominent evolutionists and took several classes in evolutionary biology. In a nutshell, the majority of the 'evidence' for evolution is similarities in DNA. Of course, that in no way precludes a creator. One could simply say that the similarities in DNA reflect God working from a common template with minor deviations accounting for the difference in species. I can remember being in class and after hearing several lectures on this topic, a student raised his hand and posed that very question to the instructor. Namely, how do similarities in DNA disprove creationism? The instructor, of course, couldn't answer that question, and simply relied on the common fallacy that observed phenomena in naturemust have a naturalistic explanation and therefore God as a causative agent cannot be used to explain th origns of life. Basically, he discredited creationism based on his definition of science...not because creationism couldn'tfully explain similarities in DNA.

I don't give a shit if it's true or not, but just like some extremist and confused religious people, some (actually many) scientists seem to be fanatical in their attitudes in the absence of solid proof.

However put all your doubts aside, as I have found PROOF, I have found the MISSING LINK!

No. They just encompass it within their nonsense. Once you start lying, why stop?

Do you honestly think that every single "creationist" is lying when they say they find the idea of a creator to be more plausible than the idea of a self caused/uncaused universe?

I understand the theory of evolution, I know how the process works. I understand astrophysics, I am familiar with most all the details of the current theories as to the laws of physics and the history of time. All these ideas, these scientifically tested and observed phenomena make a great deal of mechanical sense to me. But the question arrives in my mind - what is that energy that makes up everything and is constantly creating and changing and causing thing to happen, giving birth to life and the earth and human experience? what is this energy that appears to have a will to create and shape things?

I made a thread like this before called evolution is a lie and i was owning all the darwin believers and they got so pissed and emotional that they complained to the moderators and had the thread moved.

Of course you want to bust her face in when you believe in something and somebody is about to shatter your belief human emotions comes into play you get angry rather than face the truth that your beliefs where wrong.

I made a thread like this before called evolution is a lie and i was owning all the darwin believers and they got so pissed and emotional that they complained to the moderators and had the thread moved.

Dawkins is losing is touch. However, to be fair, this woman keeps her composure. I do find it strange that when an atheist is asked of scientific proof of species-to-species evolution (and can't produce and direct evidence), the religious folks cheer. Then the athiests ask the religious folks for the scientific proof of God (and can't produce direct evidence), then they cheer too.

Dawkins is wrong in saying that the theory of evolution is 'scientific fact'. It's not. Were it so, I'd say just about everybody would know about it. Yes, it sure does look like fact but just cause Dawkins says so don't make it so. And you would think that, with the amount of fossils of dinosaur dicks and monkey tits found daily that there would be at least one fossil of the species that existed between man and ape. Yet they haven't found it.

God folks should stick to what they know.

This woman made some good points: it's the atheists who came up with eugenics. But the religious tyrants of the world have caused plenty of death and suffering in the name of any number of 'gods'.

Both camps are in the wrong. If you believe in God, you don't need science to prove it to you. That's why it's called faith. And for those who don't believe, that's their decision. It's when these two groups try to convert the other...what's the point? This debate will never be solved, ever.

But Dawkins needs a paycheck somehow, doesn't he? I wonder what Christopher Hitchens is doing right....now...

AS FOR ME, it's TIME FOR SOME OILY THONGED MUSCLEMEN to PRANCE AROUND FOR ENJOYMENT OF MANY!

Fuck you people are stupid - science is based on inferring from observations. If you can't do that then say goodbye to all the technology that exists now - TV, computer, internet, electronics you name it. Just because you start looking at biology doesn't mean the scientific method somehow becomes invalid.

Fuck you people are stupid - science is based on inferring from observations. If you can't do that then say goodbye to all the technology that exists now - TV, computer, internet, electronics you name it. Just because you start looking at biology doesn't mean the scientific method somehow becomes invalid.

No I think you are the one lacking in observational and analytical skills. Observation can help us learn and succeed, piece the pieces together etc, but observing a similarity, even a strong similarity, between two objects/subjects does not automatically prove evolution to be an absolute fact. This can be applied to many other scenarios.

No I think you are the one lacking in observational and analytical skills. Observation can help us learn and succeed, piece the pieces together etc, but observing a similarity, even a strong similarity, between two objects/subjects does not automatically prove evolution to be an absolute fact. This can be applied to many other scenarios.

No I think you want to believe what you want to believe - there is even less proof for God than there is for evolution - of that I'm certain. Evolution doesn't just observe one similarity it observes many similarities in species across a very wide spectrum.

No I think you want to believe what you want to believe - there is even less proof for God than there is for evolution - of that I'm certain. Evolution doesn't just observe one similarity it observes many similarities in species across a very wide spectrum.

I didn't even mention GOD. You have just made it clear your analytical/thought processes are very poor.

Both camps are in the wrong. If you believe in God, you don't need science to prove it to you. That's why it's called faith. And for those who don't believe, that's their decision. It's when these two groups try to convert the other...what's the point? This debate will never be solved, ever.

Agreed. As an undergrad I worked around many prominent evolutionists and took several classes in evolutionary biology. In a nutshell, the majority of the 'evidence' for evolution is similarities in DNA. Of course, that in no way precludes a creator. One could simply say that the similarities in DNA reflect God working from a common template with minor deviations accounting for the difference in species. I can remember being in class and after hearing several lectures on this topic, a student raised his hand and posed that very question to the instructor. Namely, how do similarities in DNA disprove creationism? The instructor, of course, couldn't answer that question, and simply relied on the common fallacy that observed phenomena in naturemust have a naturalistic explanation and therefore God as a causative agent cannot be used to explain th origns of life. Basically, he discredited creationism based on his definition of science...not because creationism couldn'tfully explain similarities in DNA.

As an undergrad, you should have taken a course called "Intro to Logic" or somesuch. They're usually offered by the Philosophy Department. But since you obviously didn't, let's take a look at this together, shall we:

The question your undergrad friend asked was incorrect; creationism is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are outside the realm of science and logic, and purely a matter of faith. No amount of science and logic can refute creationism simply because creationism doesn't adhere to or rely on logic: it relies on faith and dismisses logic outright. Frankly any Professor worth his salt would have made that point eloquently, and I assume that the Professor in question did, even though you obviously didn't like the reply.

This simple answer was the reason some creationists thought long and hard and came up with the brilliant idea of taking creationism and dressing it up in a pink tutu that says "I LOVE SCIENCE!" in sparkly letters, calling it Intelligent Design and claiming that it should be given just as much consideration as any other scientific theory.

Under the Intelligent Design "theory" they argue that complex natural life forms can only be created by something they term a designing intelligence.

Of course, the pink tutu changes nothing and doesn't a scientific theory make.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by the original premise of intelligent design, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. And so intelligent design becomes an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Why by positing a supernatural creating intelligence.

But the moment that proponents of intelligent design choose that option they instantly take their pet theory outside the realm of science -- which deals with the natural and not the supernatual -- and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories.

See, you paid all that money to get edumacated at University and you could have come to getbig and get help growing your mind as well as your muscles

And you would think that, with the amount of fossils of dinosaur dicks and monkey tits found daily that there would be at least one fossil of the species that existed between man and ape. Yet they haven't found it.